Wednesday, April 30, 2014

As I read him, Clive Staples Lewis (1898-1963), probably the
most famous Christian apologist of the 20th century, presented a
four-step apologetic. I want to note in what ways this apologetic engages
science with Christian faith. Though the final step argues that Jesus is God—which
is not strictly speaking a scientific concern—the first three steps confronted
the scientifically based philosophy of his early 20th century
Oxford. I could also argue that they resonate into 21st century
American culture as well.

But
I’ll restrain myself on that last point. Instead, let me outline those first
three steps:

First
of all, there is more to the world than just material stuff. Materialism (that
there is just brute matter) is in fact self-defeating because, if we are pure
materialists, rational thinking is impossible. Lewis’s book Miracles principally presents this
apologetic, but it is scattered throughout his writings, especially in the
‘40s.

Human
beings seek something that this world cannot satisfy, which points to a God
beyond this world. “If I find in myself desires which nothing in this world can
satisfy, the only logical explanation is that I was made for another world.” This argument appears in The Problem of Pain and in “The Weight of Glory.”

There
is a Law or Rule about Right and Wrong (or the Law of Nature, or even natural
law) that exists in all human beings and points to the God created that law
within us. Lewis developed this apologetic in his opening Broadcast Talks for
BBC, which became the first section or “book” of Mere Christianity, as well as his 1943 Riddell lectures later
published as The Abolition of Man.

Let’s
look at #2 for a moment: Lewis’s argument from Joy or desire. The argument
brings to mind the question of whether Albert Einstein’s words about “God” were
really about, well, God, such as “everyone who is seriously involved in the
pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of
the Universe—a Spirit vastly superior to that of man.” Richard Dawkins argues
(not surprisingly as the arch-atheist) that this stuff in Einstien isn’t really
about God, it’s about transcendence. In his recent book, scientist Amir D.
Aczel, contends (as I understand him) that, no, this is really about the Deity,
and in fact, believing in God is profoundly compatible with science.

So
I'm going to set Lewis in this fray. What is he saying? Is he arguing that this
sense of transcendence—or better, this desire for it, which Lewis calls “Joy”—proves God? No, at least not as a
deductive proof. Instead Lewis is making a suppositional
argument here: We do not fully understand the desire for something beyond (or
Joy) itself, but it opens to a wider metaphysical conclusion, one that points
to God who created us. Or more systematically, the form of this suppositional
argument from desire proceeds as follows: Suppose
God created this world, we can imagine that God would leave a desire for more
than this world offers. We experience a longing for more than this world
offers. It is reasonable to see this as pointer to God.

In
a certain sense then, the argument cannot be decided on the basis of science or
not. Science seeks to understand the interactions of the material world. And
yet, many scientists, because they focus their lives on the interactions of the
material world, believe that this world is all there is.

Like
my title says, these are notes. Nothing fully conclusive yet. But I’m interested to
know what you think…

Friday, April 25, 2014

In the final section of his most famous book, Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis relates
the nature of Christ, as the Second Person of the Trinity, with evolution. Lewis
poses the question: What is the Next Step in Evolution? Lewis writes,

the Next
Step has already appeared. And it is really new. It is not a change from brainy
men to brainier men: it is a change that goes off in a totally different
direction—a change from being creatures of God to being sons of God. The first
instance appeared in Palestine two thousand years ago.

This Next Step is
voluntary and thus, unlike previous stages in evolution, can be missed. Lewis
uses evolution as a way to talk about the inbreaking of the new aeon in Christ.

Lewis’s BBC broadcast talks, which became this section of Mere Christianity, took place in 1943. About
three decades later, one of the greatest 20th century Catholic
theologians, Karl Rahner, wrote about “Christology within an Evolutionary View
of the World.” Rahner sees the whole of creation moving toward God’s immanence
in the world. He summarizes what this means for evolution and Christ,

The
point of the thesis that we are trying to establish is this: although the
hypostatic union [that Jesus Christ is both God and man] is a unique event in
its own essence, and viewed in itself is the highest conceivable event, it is
nevertheless an intrinsic moment within the whole process by which grace is
bestowed on spiritual creatures.

Rahner views the incarnation as a final,
definitive instantiation of what God has been doing through the process of
evolution. (This has a ring of Teilhard de Chardin about it.)

I’ll leave it there for the moment. As I contemplate doing
some research over the coming months on Christology and science, I’m interested
by the difference of approach between these two seminar Christian thinkers.